Jeff Everett

Ecological Modernization And The Limits Of Environmental Accounting

In the marketplace of ideas the discourse of ecological modernization— with its emphasis on win-win solutions, the need for universal regulation and appeals to science—has been popular of late. Environmental accounting (EA) literatures have not been immune to the attractions of ecological modernization ideas. The strategic positioning of EA research within the discourse of ecological modernization has undoubtedly provided EA with much needed visibility and legitimacy within the academic community, and has likely encouraged corporations to ‘support’ (both in financial and ideological terms) the work of EA. Yet this discourse may ultimately be limiting. In this critical commentary we propose that the ‘ideological effect’ of ecological modernization is such that the intersection of ecological and social realms is ignored and issues of social justice are effectively erased, despite this discourse’s ‘radical’ or ‘critical’ aspirations. In other words, ecological modernization is a discourse of the status quo. Overall, EA’s harmonization with this discourse has the (un)intended effect of convincing us that the system is working, that ‘progress is being made.’ This distracts us from asking difficult questions regarding the role of environmental accounting in perpetuating unequal and exploitative social relations.

Accounting and the move to privatize water services in Africa

Purpose - Using the recent attempts by the Ghanaian Government to privatize its urban water services, this paper seeks to understand the role and functioning of accounting within the global move to “reinvent government.” Design/methodology/approach - Unlike the attempts made in other African countries such as Kenya and Tanzania, the case of Ghana is interesting because of the vociferousness and length of the debate that has been going on. Using Bourdieus notion of field and capital and Foucaults idea of governmentality, and relying on a variety of archival documents and interviews with 27 key participants, the study examines the positioning of accounting practices, vocabulary and experts in this debate. Findings - The study shows how accounting is enlisted at an almost sub-conscious level, how its use can engender significant resistance and how accounting can be used to position the debate in various terms, including “profitability” “affordability” and “accountability.” Research limitations/implications - The paper shows that within new democracies such as Ghana policy-making requires the enlistment of technologies of government – including accounting – to articulate and justify divergent policy options. Practical implications - The findings of the paper have implications for regional policy-makers and their various development partners. Originality/value - Researchers and practitioners working in the area of public sector management and reforms should find significant value in the paper.

Financial scandals, accounting change and the role of accounting academics: A perspective from North America

Abstract This paper examines the responses of North American academics to the recent wave of accounting and audit scandals, pointing out that the main response has either been to appeal to a moralistic concept of ethics or to portray them as isolated incidents or indicative of problems elsewhere (e.g. relating to investment advice). We suggest that these responses fail to address the social and political context of accounting. Drawing on Bourdieus framework for analysing academic work, the paper locates North American accounting academia, even though it is quite fragmented and diverse, in the Corporate University, and the allegiances of North American accounting academics to the accounting industry. However, recent scandals also provide an opportunity to intervene effectively and produce meaningful change. Through collective action, perhaps through the Association for Integrity in Accounting, we offer suggestions for interventions to produce substantive and worthwhile changes in teaching and research.

Fear, desire, and lack in Deegan and Soltys's “Social accounting research: An Australasian perspective”

There are a number of ways to comment on Craig Deegan and Sharon Soltys’s paper, the most likely of which is to focus on the authors’ stated objectives and ask whether these were satisfactorily achieved. Thus one might ask if the paper sufficiently made the case, as stated in the introductory section, that there is a disproportionate though highly concentrated number of Australasians (AA) publishing in the social accounting literature (I would answer this with a qualified yes, pointing to a somewhat problematic sampling of journals). One might also ask if the authors did an adequate job, as stated in their abstract, of examining the nature and extent of AA social accounting research (here I’d be more hesitant as I don’t think the paper discusses in any substantive way how AA social accounting research differs from the non-AA variety). My own preference however is to take on a more ‘discursive’ reading of the paper, since I continually found myself asking the question why, in a paper that is ostensibly about the Australasian perspective on social accounting research (that is after all the title), do the authors devote most of the paper’s space to demonstrating Australasian intellectual leadership? What is it about these authors’ historical and contextual location that so motivates them to assert their preeminence in the field? To answer these questions I turned to Derrida’s (1994) ‘logic of spectrality’ and Nietzsche’s (1844–1900) ‘will to power’ (1977), concepts that draw attention to these authors’ ‘fears and desires’ and their tendency to discount an important tool that we as academics need to help affect change, namely critical thought. These concepts also help draw attention to a more general ‘lack’ that I think inheres in the wider social and environmental accounting literature (SEAR), a lack which is a function of “the [current] conditions under which the use of reason is legitimate” (Foucault, 1984, p. 38). This lack concerns the field’s continued inattention to the issues of power

A Commentary on ‘Corporate Responsibility to Respect Human Rights and Business Schools' Responsibility to Teach It’

In McPhail’s (2013) paper, a number of objectives are identified. Primary amongst these, the author aims to show how human rights advocates are increasingly focusing on corporations, and it makes a case for incorporating human rights into the sustainability agenda. More tangentially, the paper also sets out to examine human rights teaching principles, the question of why corporation and business schools should respect and teach human rights, and how business responsibility and corporate governance education can contribute to accounting practice. Similarly, the author wants to highlight the disparate ideological positions that underpin the discourse on business and human rights and the failure of human rights discourse to make it into business schools, the accounting profession, and the discourse on corporate social responsibility (CSR). The author must be commended for tackling these issues and questions, and I agree that the topic of human rights has a place in the business school curriculum. I am not convinced, however, that business schools are, or are soon to become, receptive to the idea of a human rights-oriented business curriculum. According to the author’s logic, the now-established discourse of human rights has begun to focus more on corporations, and this has thrown down a challenge to business and, consequently, to business schools. As a result, there is a need to incorporate human rights in the curriculum and tie this to the issue of sustainability, all while maintaining a critical focus. The problem for me is the manner in which the author glosses over the ‘structural tensions’ that mediate the relationship between society’s concern over business’ role in human right violations and business’ response to this concern. While the business community does influence the teaching curriculum – if only indirectly via funding arrangements, B-school quality rankings, and its shaping of student demand – it still needs to be demonstrated that it sees its role in human rights violations as a pressing problem. Despite periodic public relations nightmares that result from human tragedies such as the 2013 Bangladesh factory collapse, I am not convinced that business actors do see Accounting Education: an international journal, 2013 Vol. 22, No. 4, 413–417, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09639284.2013.817792

Trust, Morality, and the Privatization of Water Services in Developing Countries

This article examines the business of water privatization and the ethics implied in the transformation of the water services sector in developing countries. Drawing on data derived from field visits and semi‐structured interviews held with members of government, nongovernmental organizations, and other stakeholders in one country undergoing transformation in this sector, Ghana, the article considers the ethical perspectives of the various involved stakeholders. The analysis draws on three perspectives - Gilligans ethic of care, Rawls’ principles of justice, and virtue ethics - which together highlight the economic, class, and gender‐based dimensions of the privatization debate. Finding that endemic mistrust characterizes this debate, the article considers what is needed to re‐instill trust among stakeholders. Specific implications are provided for business leaders and government policymakers.